Bye bye to media immunity

[crimresearch]

Looks like a 'free press' isn't free to get away with anything and everything...particularly repeating libel.

"The Supreme Court declined Monday to consider whether journalists have constitutional protections allowing them to safely report defamatory comments made by public figures, so long as the comments are described in a neutral way.

Without comment, justices let stand a state court ruling in favor of two Parkesburg, Pa., officials who sued over a 1995 article in the Daily Local News in West Chester, Pa. As a result, journalists publishing in Pennsylvania will need to scrutinize public statements more closely for truth or face potential liability.

......the so-called neutral reportage privilege.

That privilege, recognized by some state and federal courts, lets the press convey a reputable public figure's defamatory comment as long as it is reported neutrally and accurately.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that no such privilege exists under U.S. or Pennsylvania constitutions. It ordered a new trial to decide the journalists' liability under an "actual malice" standard that asks whether the defamatory statements were published with reckless disregard for the truth."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ap/20050328/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_journalists

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I don't get it. Isn't falsehood one of the requirements for libel.

If a newspaper is not claiming allegations are true, just reporting they exist, wouldn't this shield them from libel? (Presuming of course that the newspaper did not start the allegations in the first place.)

 

[Dermanus]

That was what I was thinking. The newspaper is simply reporting what the person said. So long as it is true that person x said a bad thing that may or may not be true about person y, I don't see a problem.

 

[crimresearch]

I think that perhaps some media were reporting untrue defamatory statements, and then hiding behind this made up immunity...until this ruling at least.

 

[Bjorn]

I think that perhaps some media were reporting untrue defamatory statements, and then hiding behind this made up immunity...until this ruling at least.

Hiding is the word.

"We have heard rumours that crimresearch has had an unhealthy sexual relationship with two twelve year old boys named Dermanus and Ace_of_Sevens. We don't know if the rumours are true, but so far it has been reported that Dermanus and Ace_of_Sevens seem to be proud of the publicity".

Just reporting allegations, see?

 

[drkitten]

Originally posted but I don't know who by

"We have heard rumours that crimresearch has had an unhealthy sexual relationship with two twelve year old boys named Dermanus and Ace_of_Sevens. We don't know if the rumours are true, but so far it has been reported that Dermanus and Ace_of_Sevens seem to be proud of the publicity".

Just reporting allegations, see?

Not quite the same thing. The standard of "neutral reportage privilege" requires that the statements be made (and attributed to) "a reputable public figure," and Dame Rumour, although certainly public, is hardly reputable.

I'm not that worried about this case. If the public figure really did make the statements attributed to him, then the statement "Person x said y" is a true statement, and truth is (under US law, at least) an absolute defense against libel.

I expect the neutral reportage privileged to be re-established when the court is sufficiently instructed in epistemology.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, CBS with the fake Bush docs, and ABC with the fake republican Schiavo memo, among other MSM blunders of late, certainly make it seem like the MSM should lose some of the protection they have enjoyed.

NBC's made up attack on GM pickup trucks, and CBS's made up attack on the AUDI 5000 also come to mind immediately.

Not only are they attacking, they are sometimes making up the info* that they are attacking with......

* or totally disregarding the source, or lack thereof.

 

[Psi Baba]

The trial against the newspaper hasn't taken place yet. I think the important point is that, as the article says, "Under the standard for "actual malice," the two local officials must show that the defamatory statements were published with reckless disregard for the truth." The US Supreme Court may simply be saying that they're confident that the PA Supreme Court can handle it appropriately. Let's wait and see what the outcome is. It may be difficult, if not impossible, for the claimants to prove their case. Otherwise, does this mean that they can now sue Associated Press and Yahoo! News as well for re-reporting those comments?

 

[Bjorn]

Not quite the same thing. The standard of "neutral reportage privilege" requires that the statements be made (and attributed to) "a reputable public figure," and Dame Rumour, although certainly public, is hardly reputable.

Oh. So .... would this do the trick?

"Bjorn said yesterday that crimresearch has an ongoing, unhealthy sexual relationship with two twelve year old boys named Dermanus and Ace_of_Sevens. He's also disgusted by the fact that Dermanus and Ace_of_Sevens seem to be proud of the publicity".

I am reputable, or .... ?

 

[CBL4]

This seems bizarre to me. What a city council member certainly is newsworthy. If the newspaper reports it accurately, how can it be a crime?

Assume Kerry had said "Bush is racist bigot who wants to kill all blacks." What could the media have said that would not be libelous? If they quote Kerry accurately, Bush could sue them for libel. If they said Kerry accused Bush of being a racist, I assume that Bush could still sue them because there is an implication that Bush is a racist. It seems to me they are restricted to saying "Kerry said some nasty stuff about Bush and Bush denies it."

But even this example is too strong. Suppose Kerry said "Bush does not care about the poor." Quoting this could also be seen as libelous.

This ruling is absurd. There is a huge difference between quoting a rumour and the statement of a politician.

CBL

 

[crimresearch]

So if an anonymous source makes a patently untrue and harmful statement about someone, the media shouldn't repeat it, but if there is a name to attach, the media can go ahead and help that person ruin someone's life by spreading a rumour that they knew or should have known was false and damaging?

Sorry, I don't find this so called immunity in the Consitution any more than the state court did.

 

[Grammatron]

This seems bizarre to me. What a city council member certainly is newsworthy. If the newspaper reports it accurately, how can it be a crime?

Assume Kerry had said "Bush is racist bigot who wants to kill all blacks." What could the media have said that would not be libelous? If they quote Kerry accurately, Bush could sue them for libel. If they said Kerry accused Bush of being a racist, I assume that Bush could still sue them because there is an implication that Bush is a racist. It seems to me they are restricted to saying "Kerry said some nasty stuff about Bush and Bush denies it."

But even this example is too strong. Suppose Kerry said "Bush does not care about the poor." Quoting this could also be seen as libelous.

This ruling is absurd. There is a huge difference between quoting a rumour and the statement of a politician.

CBL

I think it would depend on if you are reporting that "Bush doesn't care about the poor" and using your source as Kerry or if you are reporting on Kerry's statement of "Bush doesn't care about the poor."

It seem to me that it would encourage the media to check their sources and actually do some investigating rather than continuing with being a rumor mill which what most of modern media has become.

 

[drkitten]

This seems bizarre to me. What a city council member certainly is newsworthy. If the newspaper reports it accurately, how can it be a crime?

I just read the court decision, and it looks like the controlling factor is not the reportage (or lack thereof), but whether or not the media act with "actual malice" in what they report.

From the court ruling:

This privilege [neutral reportage] adopts the radical notion that media defendents, in repeating newsworthy comments regarding a public official, will be relieved from liability even where the public official plaintiiff can establish that the media defendents acted with actual malice.

So merely reporting a fact is still not a crime (even under the new ruling), but maliciously reporting a fact might be. "Actual malice" is of course a term of art (what isn't, in the law?), and it really means either that the defendant knows that the statement is false, or acts with "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." "Reckless disregard," in turn, means that "the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual malice."

This standard should be relatively easy for a responsible newspaper to meet.

 

[Bjorn]

So if an anonymous source makes a patently untrue and harmful statement about someone, the media shouldn't repeat it, but if there is a name to attach, the media can go ahead and help that person ruin someone's life by spreading a rumour that they knew or should have known was false and damaging?

Sorry, I don't find this so called immunity in the Consitution any more than the state court did.

We agree. Mark the date!

 

[CBL4]

I am not sure I understand how accurately reporting what a public official says about another public official can be malicious. (Assuming of course, the paper and the libeler are not in cahoots.)It is a newsworthy event.

If the public official's comment is malicious, his statement is newsworthy because he committed libel. If the public official is correct, it clearly cannot be libelous. If the public official is non-maliciously incorrect, his statement newsworthy because it show him to be untrustworthy.

CBL

 

[drkitten]

I am not sure I understand how accurately reporting what a public official says about another public official can be malicious. (Assuming of course, the paper and the libeler are not in cahoots.)It is a newsworthy event.

Well, that in turn would depend upon how the "accurate" reporting was actually written. It's easily possible -- and most politicians are masters at this -- to present "true" facts in such a leading (or misleading) context as to create false impressions. (The phrase "yellow journalism" should evoke memories here.) Creationists, with their ability to mine quotes out of context, are also good examples of how one can accurately report words maliciously. (The proof is left to your favorite search engine : "Creationist" + "out of context.")

Conversely, any responsible newspaper should be able to present the controversy fairly in a way that absolves them of "actual malice." But I would have no particular qualms about slamming libel charges on a newspaper that handled political quotations with the same "reckless disregard for the truth" as creation scientists.

 

[Art Vandelay]

So merely reporting a fact is still not a crime (even under the new ruling), but maliciously reporting a fact might be.

Whether it is a valid tort, and whether it is a crime, are two completely different issues.

"Actual malice" is of course a term of art (what isn't, in the law?), and it really means either that the defendant knows that the statement is false, or acts with "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

By "the statement", do you mean the statement that the defendant made, or the original statement?

crimresearch

So if an anonymous source makes a patently untrue and harmful statement about someone, the media shouldn't repeat it, but if there is a name to attach, the media can go ahead and help that person ruin someone's life by spreading a rumour that they knew or should have known was false and damaging?

Sorry, I don't find this so called immunity in the Consitution any more than the state court did.

The issue is not whether there is an immunity. The Constitution quite clearly states that there is. The issue is whether this immunity can be overriden in certain circumstances. If repeating a true statement can create liability merely because of the presence of malice, then could Michael Moore sue people for criticizing his movies?

 

[crimresearch]

Whether it is a valid tort, and whether it is a crime, are two completely different issues.

By "the statement", do you mean the statement that the defendant made, or the original statement?

crimresearchThe issue is not whether there is an immunity. The Constitution quite clearly states that there is. The issue is whether this immunity can be overriden in certain circumstances. If repeating a true statement can create liability merely because of the presence of malice, then could Michael Moore sue people for criticizing his movies?

'Immunity' is a specific legal construct, and press immunity does NOT appear anywhere in the US Constitution, nor is it is included under the language regarding 'Freedom of the press'.

There is a common sense component to the wording, and the same common sense that tells us that the press is neither free to cause, nor immune from consequences for, a wrongful death, would apply the same concept to committing (and now apparently repeating) libel.
In this context, 'freedom' is not infinite, nor absolute, neither does it confer automatic immunity in court.

Also notice that I was commenting on untrue statements, and yet Art opens up pretending that I was making claims about *true* statements repeated by the press.

As always, Art doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground on this issue, but based on past experience, he will certainly take some ignorant rumor or urban myth, and try to pass it off as 'The Law' while ignoring Supreme Court rulings and legal definitions amid a flurry of name calling and juvenile debate tactics.

Then, he will flip flop and claim that it was someone else who made the untenable claims, and attempt to fabricate quotes putting his drivel in someone else's mouth.

So, I'm going to give him the Shanek/Larsen award early in this thread.

 

[CBL4]

Well, that in turn would depend upon how the "accurate" reporting was actually written. It's easily possible -- and most politicians are masters at this -- to present "true" facts in such a leading (or misleading) context as to create false impressions.

I guess what you are saying is that if the newspaper accurately reported libelous remarks by a public figure, then that would be OK. However, if they (mis)reported remarks in a malicious way in order to inflame the remarks making non-libelous remark libelous, then it could be considered libelous. I guess that makes sense but I doubt it would ever be the case.

It still smells a little fishy to me but it is reasonable.

CBL

 

[drkitten]

I guess what you are saying is that if the newspaper accurately reported libelous remarks by a public figure, then that would be OK. However, if they (mis)reported remarks in a malicious way in order to inflame the remarks making non-libelous remark libelous, then it could be considered libelous. I guess that makes sense but I doubt it would ever be the case.

Not quite. I'm saying that if a newspaper deliberately misreported (or selectively reported, or reported out-of-context, etc.) a public figure, then that should be actionable. The "neutral reportage privilege," on the other hand, would protect the newspaper "even where the public official plaintiiff can establish that the media defendents acted with actual malice." (That's a direct quotation from the relevant court decision.)

In other words -- "Yes, I misquoted you, but so what? Nyah nyah."

Basically, the court held that the plaintiff was not granted a fair trial on the merits of the case, because he was held to an unwinnable standard. (Even if he proved "actual malice," he still couldn't have won.) For this reason, the court has granted the plaintiff a new trial.

I'm deliberately not expressing an opinion about the legality of fairly and neutrally reporting libelous remarks, because that's the issue that will be decided by this new trial -- because that's not (really) the argument that the defense presented in the first trial.

But the retrial still doesn't mean that the plaintiffs will be able to win. The key point will still be whether or not the defendant published false and defamatory statements. I expect that the defendant will be able to prove that the statement 'Glenn said that "[direct quotation]"' is not false, and therefore not libelous.